| |
2005.11.07 03.56
Rambling at 4am
It is my experience that conflict is often caused by the lack of clarity in communication. A word or phrase spoken by one party can have drastically different meaning and implications to a second party. The difficulties we all have in expressing ourselves from time to time only make this problem more common. If we are not able to clearly communicate our precise meaning, then it is futile to expect others to be able to understand what it is we mean. Even for those of us who believe that we communicate with great clarity for the most part, our ability to encode meaning in a given medium is only one of three major operators in communication. Those being the encoding process, the distorting aspects of the medium itself, and the decoding process the other party must undergo in order to receive the message. Given the fact that each party will have different factors affecting their encoding/decoding process, and given that it is impossible for a separate party to be aware of all of these factors, it follows that perfect transmission of a message from one party to another is impossible.
Putting this aside, the purpose of language is to provide a common medium in which communication can proceed despite relative concepts. Terms for color become defined and not relative. “Green” becomes a specific range of wavelengths instead of relying on individual definitions. We even have dictionaries which update regularly with a definition of all words sanctioned for use between those agreeing on a specific language as the medium for their communication. Slang presents a problem to this idea however. The development of connotations based on shared experiences and common usage results in new meanings developing for words beyond their agreed upon definitions. There are two ways to view this phenomenon. One, that it is a failing in society, corrupting a language and encouraging conflict based on communication issues. The use of Latin for instance would seem to be a more logical choice for communication. The language itself has less variation when you view the progeny Romance languages as aberrations and not dialects. Would it not be more effective to discourage the formation of dialects and slang, and use a language which is itself freer from innate bastardization than say English? This would achieve the goal of language. The other way to view the alteration of language is that it is a fundamental part of the medium. That the adaptation of the medium is intentional and a strength. It gives us the ability to alter the medium to express new terms that did not exist previously. There is no Latin word for neutron, for instance, but physicists rely on this word and untold others to communicate. This could not occur in a medium which was rigid.
Whether it is a good or bad thing for those using it to communicate, the existence of evolution in a given language is undeniable. Thus the most reasonable thing to be done to avoid the conflict caused by differences in meaning derived form separate experiences is to accept this fact and be aware of its impact on your message as you attempt to encode it. Sharing definitions as possible discrepancies come up can save much time and hassle on both ends of the conversation. Never assume that simply because someone doesn’t initially understand what you mean that they are incapable of understanding your meaning.
Mood:  groggy
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
dom_said's journal
